B16 has issued a document to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that tightens up some of the procedures that have been used in recent years.
True to form, the Vatican web folks don’t have it translated into English yet–or even easily locatable via browsing,
The site serving it seems to be having connectivity problems, though,
so I’ve also put a copy of it in the below-the-fold section of this
post.
It’s been a few days, and none of the news services seem to have translated the document, but perhaps one of the Italian-speakers reading the blog may choose to perform a spiritual service for the English-speaking community by translating the short document (it’s about 1300 words in Italian). If so, I’d be happy to post the complete text.
In the meantime, we’re dependent on press-reports concerning what the pope said, such as
THIS ONE and THIS ONE and THIS ONE.
The general assessment that everyone is making is that B16 is significantly tightening up the requirements for sainthood in a way that could–in time, though perhaps not immediately–slow the astounding number of saints that have been canonized in recent years (i.e., during JP2’s reign, JP2 having proclaimed more saints than all the popes in the last 500 years PUT TOGETHER and having beatified even more people).
The reasons for JP2’s unprecedented number of canonizations is not fully clear to me, though it is something that has often been speculated upon. One of the speculations I find most interesting is that JP2 basically gave the Congregation for the Causes of Saints a kick in the pants and told them to start working on the backlog of causes that they had been sitting on, but I doubt that this would fully explain the sudden rush of saints.
As part of that rush, a number of questionable things were done, particularly in the area of proclaiming individuals to be martyrs.
Historically, martyrs are people who (a) accepted death that was being offered to them (b) because of hatred for the Christian faith.
They witnessed to the truth of the Christian faith even to the point of accepting death rather than denying it, making them witnesses in the superlative sense and qualifying them to be called "martyrs" (from the Greek word for "witnesses").
For someone to be a martyr in the classic sense, both of the above elements have to be present. The person has to accept death (meaning: they were given a choice to avoid death by denying the faith) and they have to be killed because of hatred for the faith (meaning: not for some other reason).
Thus I would not be a martyr if I go to Mass one day and al-Qa’eda blows up the church that I am in. In this case I wasn’t given the chance to avoid death by renouncing my faith. I was killed because I was a Christian, but I wasn’t given the chance to witness to the truth of the faith by accepting death rather than denying it.
That, as CNS points out, seems relevant to the potential canonization of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated while he was saying Mass and had no chance to save his life by denying the faith.
Similarly, you would not be a martyr if someone killed you not out of hatred for Christianity but for some other reason, such as a political or social one. Thus if you are an outspoken social or political activist who runs afoul of the local Powers That Be and they decide to off you to shut you up, you’re not being killed because of hatred of the faith. The Powers That Be may even be Christians themselves (although not good ones) and have no problem at all with Christians in general, only with outspoken activists who make themselves inconvenient.
(I know the argument that by being an outspoken activist you may be witnessing to important Christian values, but this isn’t enough. The Christian faith doesn’t demand that every single person become the kind of outspoken activist you were, so it wasn’t the Christian faith that required this of you. You could have toned down your activism without denying the Christian faith. It is a refusal to deny the faith that makes a martyr, and you weren’t put in the situation of having to deny the faith in order to save your life.)
Unfortunately, in the recent rush of saints a number of people were proclaimed martyrs who did not appear to meet these criteria. While these people are certainly in heaven because of the infallibility of canonizations, the label "martyr" was applied to them in a way that did not meet the historic criteria for its usage.
The good news is that B16 seems to be hip to this, and he wants the term "martyr" used more rigorously and in its historic sense.
That, to my mind, is a good thing, because to expand the term "martyr" to new, unclear usages (a) sows confusion about what a martyr is and thus (b) dilutes and diminishes the witness of those who really did accept death rather than deny the Christian faith.
If the term "martyr" gets used in a new, fuzzy sense then I no longer know from the fact that a particular saint is a "matyr" that they witnessed to the truth of the faith by giving their live to avoid denying it. They may have just been murdered by a Christian-hater or killed because they were too outspoken an activist, and those aren’t the same things.
B16 also put the kibosh on a suggestion by some that the Church ought to count "moral miracles" (e.g., the conversions of notorious sinners) rather than "physical miracles" (e.g., medically unexplainable healings) toward sainthood.
At least all this is how it seems from press reports–pending our getting a translation of the Italian original.
Click below to see that.
MESSAGGIO DEL SANTO PADRE AI PARTECIPANTI ALLA SESSIONE PLENARIA DELLA CONGREGAZIONE DELLE CAUSE DEI SANTI
Pubblichiamo di seguito il Messaggio che il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI ha inviato al Prefetto della Congregazione delle Cause dei Santi, Em.mo Card. Jos� Saraiva Martins, e ai partecipanti alla Sessione Plenaria della Congregazione:
MESSAGGIO DEL SANTO PADRE
Al Venerato Fratello
il Signor Cardinale JOS� SARAIVA MARTINS
Prefetto della Congregazione delle Cause dei Santi
In occasione della Sessione Plenaria di codesta Congregazione delle Cause dei Santi, desidero rivolgere a Lei, Signor Cardinale, il mio cordiale saluto, che volentieri estendo ai Signori Cardinali, agli Arcivescovi ed ai Vescovi che prendono parte ai lavori. Saluto, altres�, il Segretario, il Sottosegretario, i Consultori, i Periti-Medici, i Postulatori e quanti fanno parte di codesto Dicastero. Al saluto unisco l�espressione dei miei sentimenti di apprezzamento e di gratitudine per il servizio che codesta Congregazione rende alla Chiesa, promuovendo le Cause dei Santi, che "sono i veri portatori di luce all�interno della storia, perch� sono uomini e donne di fede, di speranza e di amore", come ho scritto nell�Enciclica "Deus caritas est" (n. 40). Per questo la Chiesa, fin dall�inizio, ha tenuto in grande onore la loro memoria e il loro culto, dedicando, nel corso dei secoli, un�attenzione sempre pi� vigile alle procedure che conducono i Servi di Dio agli onori degli altari. Le Cause dei Santi, infatti, sono considerate "cause maggiori" sia per la nobilt� della materia trattata sia per la loro incidenza nella vita del popolo di Dio. Alla luce di questa realt�, i miei Predecessori sono intervenuti spesso, con speciali provvedimenti normativi, a migliorarne la celebrazione e lo studio. A questo fine tendeva la stessa istituzione della Sacra Congregazione dei Riti, voluta da Sisto V nel 1588. Come non ricordare, poi, la provvida legislazione di Urbano VIII, il Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1917, le norme di Pio XI per le Cause antiche, il Motu Proprio "Sanctitas clarior" e la Costituzione apostolica "Sacra Rituum Congregatio" di Paolo VI? Un particolare cenno di gratitudine va rivolto al mio Predecessore Benedetto XIV, giustamente considerato "il maestro" delle Cause dei Santi. Pi� recentemente, nel 1983, l�amato Giovanni Paolo II promulg� la Costituzione apostolica "Divinus perfectionis Magister", a cui fece seguito, nello stesso anno, la pubblicazione delle "Normae servandae in inquisitionibus ab Episcopis faciendis in Causis Sanctorum".
L�esperienza di oltre vent�anni da quel testo ha suggerito a codesta Congregazione di predisporre un�opportuna "Istruzione per lo svolgimento dell�inchiesta diocesana nelle Cause dei Santi". Questo documento si rivolge prevalentemente ai Vescovi diocesani e costituisce il primo tema all�ordine del giorno della vostra Plenaria. Tale documento intende agevolare la fedele applicazione delle citate "Normae servandae" al fine di salvaguardare la seriet� delle investigazioni che si svolgono nelle inchieste diocesane sulle virt� dei Servi di Dio oppure sui casi di asserito martirio o sugli eventuali miracoli. Le Cause vanno istruite e studiate con somma cura, cercando diligentemente la verit� storica, attraverso prove testimoniali e documentali "omnino plenae", poich� esse non hanno altra finalit� che la gloria di Dio e il bene spirituale della Chiesa e di quanti sono alla ricerca della verit� e della perfezione evangelica. I Pastori diocesani, decidendo "coram Deo" quali siano le Cause meritevoli di essere iniziate, valuteranno anzitutto se i candidati agli onori degli altari godano realmente di una solida e diffusa fama di santit� e di miracoli oppure di martirio. Tale fama, che il Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1917 voleva che fosse "spontanea, non arte aut diligentia procurata, orta ab honestis et gravibus personis, continua, in dies aucta et vigens in praesenti apud maiorem partem populi" (can. 2050, � 2), � un segno di Dio che indica alla Chiesa coloro che meritano di essere collocati sul candelabro per fare "luce a tutti quelli che sono nella casa" (Mt 5,15). � chiaro che non si potr� iniziare una Causa di beatificazione e canonizzazione se manca una comprovata fama di santit�, anche se ci si trova in presenza di persone che si sono distinte per coerenza evangelica e per particolari benemerenze ecclesiali e sociali.
Il secondo tema che affronta la vostra Plenaria � "il miracolo nelle Cause dei Santi". � noto che fin dall�antichit�, l�iter per arrivare alla canonizzazione passa attraverso la prova delle virt� e dei miracoli, attribuiti alla intercessione del candidato agli onori degli altari. Oltre a rassicurarci che il Servo di Dio vive in cielo in comunione con Dio, i miracoli costituiscono la divina conferma del giudizio espresso dall�autorit� ecclesiastica sulla sua vita virtuosa. Auspico che la Plenaria possa approfondire questo argomento alla luce della tradizione della Chiesa, dell�odierna teologia e delle pi� accreditate acquisizioni della scienza. Non va dimenticato che nell�esame degli asseriti eventi miracolosi confluisce la competenza degli scienziati e dei teologi, sebbene la parola decisiva spetti alla teologia, la sola in grado di dare del miracolo un�interpretazione di fede. Per questo nella procedura delle Cause dei Santi si passa dalla valutazione scientifica della Consulta Medica o dei periti tecnici all�esame teologico da parte dei Consultori e successivamente dei Cardinali e Vescovi. � poi da tenere presente chiaramente che la prassi ininterrotta della Chiesa stabilisce la necessit� di un miracolo fisico, non bastando un miracolo morale.
Il terzo tema sottoposto alla riflessione della Plenaria concerne il martirio, dono dello Spirito e patrimonio della Chiesa di ogni epoca (cfr Lumen gentium, 42). Il venerato Pontefice Giovanni Paolo II, nella Lettera apostolica "Tertio millennio adveniente", ha osservato che, essendo la Chiesa diventata nuovamente Chiesa dei Martiri, "per quanto � possibile non devono andare perdute � le loro testimonianze" (n. 37). I martiri di ieri e quelli del nostro tempo danno la vita (effusio sanguinis) liberamente e consapevolmente, in un supremo atto di carit�, per testimoniare la loro fedelt� a Cristo, al Vangelo, alla Chiesa. Se il motivo che spinge al martirio resta invariato, avendo in Cristo la fonte e il modello, sono invece mutati i contesti culturali del martirio e le strategie "ex parte persecutoris", che sempre meno cerca di evidenziare in modo esplicito la sua avversione alla fede cristiana o ad un comportamento connesso con le virt� cristiane, ma simula differenti ragioni, per esempio di natura politica o sociale. � certo necessario reperire prove inconfutabili sulla disponibilit� al martirio, come effusione del sangue, e sulla sua accettazione da parte della vittima, ma � altrettanto necessario che affiori direttamente o indirettamente, pur sempre in modo moralmente certo, l�"odium Fidei" del persecutore. Se difetta questo elemento, non si avr� un vero martirio secondo la perenne dottrina teologica e giuridica della Chiesa. Il concetto di �martirio�, riferito ai Santi e ai Beati martiri, va inteso, conformemente all�insegnamento di Benedetto XIV, come: "voluntaria mortis perpessio sive tolerantia propter Fidem Christi, vel alium virtutis actum in Deum relatum" (De Servorum Dei beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione, Prato 1839-1841, Lib III, cap. 11,1). � questo il costante insegnamento della Chiesa.
Gli argomenti allo studio della vostra Plenaria sono di indubbio interesse e le riflessioni, con le eventuali proposte che da essa emergeranno, offriranno un prezioso apporto al conseguimento degli obiettivi indicati da Giovanni Paolo II nella Costituzione apostolica "Divinus perfectionis Magister", dove afferma: "Ci � sembrato molto opportuno rivedere ancora la procedura nell�istruzione delle Cause [dei Santi], e riordinare la stessa Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi in modo da andare incontro alle esigenze degli studiosi e ai desideri dei nostri Fratelli nell�episcopato, i quali pi� volte hanno sollecitato una maggiore agilit� di procedura, conservata per� la solidit� delle ricerche in un affare di tanta importanza. Pensiamo inoltre che, alla luce della dottrina sulla collegialit� proposta dal Concilio Vaticano II, sia assai conveniente che i Vescovi stessi vengano maggiormente associati alla Sede Apostolica nel trattare le Cause dei Santi". Coerentemente con tali indicazioni, eletto alla Cattedra di Pietro, volentieri ho dato esecuzione al diffuso auspicio che venisse maggiormente sottolineata, nelle modalit� celebrative, la differenza sostanziale tra la beatificazione e la canonizzazione e che nei riti di beatificazione venissero coinvolte pi� visibilmente le Chiese particolari, fermo restando che solo al Romano Pontefice compete concedere il culto ad un Servo di Dio.
Signor Cardinale, ringrazio per il servizio che codesta Congregazione rende alla Chiesa e, augurando un proficuo lavoro a coloro che prendono parte alla Plenaria, per intercessione di tutti i Santi e della Regina dei Santi, invoco su ciascuno la luce dello Spirito Santo. Da parte mia, assicuro un ricordo nella preghiera, mentre di cuore tutti benedico.
Dal Vaticano, 24 Aprile 2006
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
It does seem to me like modern terrorism throws a screwball in this. What if people within a country are told if they convert to Islam they won’t be bombed? In a state? A city? Or must it be a personal communication? Would a death threat count, even if you can’t tell how serious it is?
The problem with the broader definition of “martyr” is that, like Jimmy said, it makes it unclear whether a person was just murdered, or accepted death. The latter kind of death is a true spiritual sacrifice, akin to Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.
If an Islamofascist, out of hatred for Christianity, decided to blow up a typical parish church in the U.S., he would undoubtedly kill a few heretics and serious sinners in the process (or more than a few).
The looser definition would put them into the same category as true martyrs who willingly give themselves up to torture and death, rather than abandon the faith.
In the words of Hattie McDaniel, “it just ain’t fittin'”.
I’m glad to hear this. The term “martyr” has indeed been applied to many in Catholicism who simply did not fit the requirements. It has been abused. There is a huge difference between accepting death rather than denying the Catholic Christian faith, and being murdered suddenly because one is a Catholic Christian. One is a martyr, the other is a murder victim. The former is graced with the choice of denying the faith to continue living, while the latter is given no such opportunity.
This clarification is seriously needed today.
I don’t think the expansion of the term martyr is all that new, considering as a term it has been used for a long time for saints like Thomas Beckett, whose case doesn’t seem quite to fit the classic definition of a martyr.
St. Edward the Martyr, uncle to St. Edward the Confessor, who was killed for basically political and not religious reasons (his step-mother wanter her own son on the throne) is another English saint given the title martyr outside the narrower definition of the term. The CE comments: “The violence of St. Edward’s end, joined to the fact that the party opposed to him had been that of the irreligious, whilst he himself had ever acted as defender of the Church, obtained for him the title of Martyr, which is given to him in all the old English calendars on 18 March, also in the Roman Martyrology.”
In the East a person who dies for the faith but but isn’t a martyr in the classical sense is deemed a Passion Bearer. Maybe this term should be used.
I would be glad to see the term clarified; however, I am still very, very glad that so many martyrs, however defined, were canonized.
The reason is that after many long years of relative peace, we are now once again seeing the rise of virulent anti-Catholicism, shouted from the housetops and the media with complete impunity (except for the heroic work of the Catholic League). Sweet little Katie Couric reveals herself to be a foaming-at-the-mouth Catholic hater; the DVC sells more copies than the Bible in 2004; every state is trying to pass anti-Catholic laws, laws aimed ONLY at Catholics, from those to end the statute of limitations to those demanding Catholic phramacists and physicians violate their conscience to those (failing so far) trying to open up the secrets of the confessional. In Canada and I believe the UK, priests were arrested for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality – this having become a “hate crime.” Liberals are bending over backward to defend Islam, with its anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-liberty agenda, while sneering at Christianity every chance it gets.
God only knows what is coming next, and we all, including our children, need to have the Mexican, Vietnamese, and pther martyrs held up before our eyes to remind ourselves of what even “liberal” societies are capable of.
And let’s not forget St. Maria Goretti. I don’t know why she was a martyr in the strict sense any more than St. Maximilian Kolbe.
I’m glad to see the definition narrowed. I’m hoping this will help undo the Muslims’ redefinition of the word. When Yasser Arafat launched the latest intifadah (but before 9/11), I actually saw Muslims on TV claiming that suicide bombers were similar to Christian martyrs. They were trying to use the example of Samson. 9/11 put an end to that talk in the US, anyway. But I know in the Muslim world those homicidal, suicidal maniacs are still being extolled as “martyrs”.
Anyone know for certain if the old designation of “Confessor” was abolished? Or has it simply fallen into disuse?
I suspect it may be similar in practice to the Oriental title “Passion Bearer”, but as this combox is the first I’ve heard of the latter title, I’m going out on a limb here.
Jimmy,
This is all a little confusing to me.
The North American Martyrs (I LOVE THOSE GUYS), for example, may not have all been killed directly because of hatred for the Christian faith. Sure, they were out proclaiming the good news when they were killed and would not have been in harms way if it weren’t for their desire to make converts, but lots of other factors put the target on their backs as much as a general hatred for the Christian faith. Superstitious natives thought they brought bad luck, Iroquois hated them for hanging out with Huron, and they were hated for being French and foreign as much as for being Christians. They accepted the dangers of the job, which were obvious, but renouncing the faith in order to save their lives probably wasn’t an option given to them by their killers.
Compare this to Saint Paul Miki and Companions (I LOVE THOSE GUYS TOO!) who were killed because the Christian Faith was a direct threat to the control that the Japanese emperor enjoyed. They were given the opportunity to renounce their faith but they refused and were crucified.
You write, “The person has to accept death (meaning: they were given a choice to avoid death by denying the faith) and they have to be killed because of hatred for the faith (meaning: not for some other reason).”
While Saint Paul Miki and Companions clearly meet the criteria, your understanding of the requirements for martyrdom seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of calling the North American Martyrs… well… martyrs.
So, if you expand:
(a)“choice to avoid death by denying the faith” to “choice to ignore the call of faith to put oneself in harms way”
and (b)“ [killed] not for some other reason” to “ killed for reasons associated with living the Christian faith”
you have a more workable definition that would not exclude uncommonly heroic acts of self sacrifice such as those of the North American Martyrs.
But this would mean that if al-Qa’eda threatened to blow up your church because they think it represents the pro-Israel West, but you chose to go anyway and died in that church, you might qualify as a martyr. I don’t find that confusing at all. I find that inspiring.
I know it gets a little grey when you get to Archbishop Oscar Romero. I think that he, as a bishop, was required by the faith to speak out against the powers that killed him. This is probably why John Paul the Great referred to Romero as a martyr at his tomb. Romero could have shut up or gone into hiding, shirking his duty as a public voice for good Catholics, but he acted fearlessly and was shot while celebrating mass. But I can see how someone might disagree with me on this one.
But the North American Martyrs? You have to agree with me on those guys! 😉
PS: Love your blog.
It seems that a few of us have been able to come up with older examples of saints recognized as martyrs who didn’t meet the classical criteria (I’ll throw the Holy Innocents out there as well). There thus seems to be leeway historically for the term martyr.
I think then, that as Dr. Eric suggested their could be a term different from Martyr that still recognizes the sacrfice these saints (and future saints) make – like Passion Bearer, or Confessor. In fact, I think there should be. I have no qualms about referring to someone like Beckett, Goretti, or the Holy Innocents as martrys, but if we’re going to narrow down the definition than we need another term to still honor these saints for sharing in Christ’s Passion to the utmost.
And now for something completely different.
Usually your page is Unicode based, but the encoding of non-standard characters above were in ISO-8859-1. Please stick to Unicode, thanks.
This is some of what what the old online Catholic Encyclopedia says about the title Confessor:
The word confessor is derived from the Latin confiteri, to confess, to profess, but it is not found in writers of the classical period, having been first used by the Christians. With them it was a title of honour to designate those brave champions of the Faith who had confessed Christ publicly in time of persecution and had been punished with imprisonment, torture, exile, or labour in the mines, remaining faithful in their confession until the end of their lives. The title thus distinguished them from the martyrs, who were so called because they underwent death for the Faith.
After the middle of the fourth century we find confessor used to designate those men of remarkable virtue and knowledge who confessed the Faith of Christ before the world by the practice of the most heroic virtue, by their writings and preachings, and in consequence began to be objects of veneration, had chapels (martyria) erected in their honour, which in the previous centuries had been the especial privilege of the martyrs.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215a.htm
I’ll add that St. John the Baptist would not qualify as a martyr either by the classical definition.
“Renouncing your faith” need not be verbal. You can certainly renounce your faith by an act. Roman emperor ordered not that Christians were to say they were not Christians but to offer sacrifice to pagan gods.
St. Maria Goretti fits in the mold of many early virgin martyrs: slave women who asserted their chastity in the Roman Empire. Because all Christians are called to chastity, just as they are called to refrain from pagan worship, such an act could be called an act — but it’s a stretch.
And many missionary martyrs knew, in a general sense that their deaths could ensue if they did not leave the mission field, but then, not all Christians are called to be missionaries.
I think this definition excludes many, many, many people historically called martyrs, and one should always be cautious at overriding such a longstanding tradition.
JPII also threw out the “Devils Advocate” something that had stood for centuries to truly test the merits of sainthood, as he wanted nothing to stand in his way
In reading much about JPII as his actions clearly suprise me and the adoration of the world for him astonishes me as someone who was not looking out for the best for the Catholic faith. From his first day after being elected to follow the norms of the Papacy to this incredible number of saints. The so called “miracles” that are attributed to these saints are at best questionable not to mention the so called miracles attributed to “Santo Subito”.
He felt that the “average” man or woman should be and obtain sainthood-but we know that this is not true, as to even obtain the gates of heaven is difficult enough
John 1,
I am not an expert on the matter by any means, but I hear the getting rid of the “Devil’s Advocate” was part of a larger move to change the cannonization process from a trial model in which some argue for the sancity of the person ignoring or trying to obscure their faults, and others try to argue that the person was unholy and try to discredit him or her. JPII thought a better process would be for people to approach the matter from a scholarly point of view, people examining the doctrine and life of the person in an honest manner and deciding whether they practiced heroic virtue. This seems quite reasonable to me. The people working on the canonizaton process would have to be honest, but then that was always the case regarding the final decision, while the old process required key people researching the person’s life to be dishonest and even uncharitable in their approach.
I doubt JPII ever said he though “average” men or women should be canonized. He thought “ordinary” men and women should be. There is a huge difference. Most people are not called to be a missionary in a dangerous area or found a new religious order or have and describe visions. A major reason the Church canonizes saints is to give the faithful examples of sanctity they can follow. To only proclaim such exceptions to the rule as saints is to give a very skewed picture of sanctity. By canonizing and beatifying married people or monks or nuns who lived an ordinary, obscure, laborious life with extraordinary sanctity the Church gives us real examples to follow.
what is freaking blog about http://facebook-proxy-vpn.blogspot.com
i understand that is for anonymous surfing people use it for http://facebook.com http://myspace.com other social networking sites
like http://360.yahoo.com how can i use it for torrent or eDonkey.